Re: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All

Perhaps because he does not propose an experiment as much as
describing possible observations which would rule a multiverse
unlikely.

As to the consistency with science, it is a minimal requirement. Thus
when trying to compare multiverses with pseudo-scientific notions, one
has to ignore that multiverses are a logical prediction which follows
from the cosmological models involved.
In other words, it is not an ad hoc model.

The question I was addressing is the statement about multiverses that
it is a metaphysical concept.

Tegmark provides an outline as to how science may test multiverses.

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:51 AM, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:
> PVM,
>
> I have over the years read the Tegmark paper many times. Perhaps you can
> help, I seem to be missing something. What experiment does he suggest? I
> always seem to miss that no matter how carefully I read it.
>
> Also, you wrote:
>
>>
>> First of all, unlike pseudoscience, multiverses actually follow from
>> the basic cosmological models
>
> .
>
> But that doesn't give them a get out of jail free card. Classical
> Electromagnetic theory is great at an enormous range of applications. It
> also, however, predicts atomic instabillity, not to mention an ultraviolet
> catastrophe. Similarly, at most multiple universes are suggested--but that
> means little more than incentive to look for them. If you can.
>
> Something "consistent" with a model still is not science if it cannot be
> tested.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:07 PM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> First of all, unlike pseudoscience, multiverses actually follow from
>> the basic cosmological models. As to whether or not we should call it
>> a theory versus an hypothesis, I am not sure how the terms are being
>> used in the popular press and scientific sources.
>>
>> Tegmark for instance remarked "The lesson is that the multiverse
>> theory can be tested and falsified even though we cannot see the other
>> universes." Now if I can only find the full text... Aha
>>
>> http://www.dvmx.com/multiverse.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> The lesson to learn from this example is that multiverse theories can
>> be tested and falsified, but only if they predict what the ensemble of
>> parallel universes is and specify a probability distribution (or more
>> generally what mathematicians call a measure) over it. As we will see
>> in Section V B, this measure problem can be quite serious and is
>> still unsolved for some multiverse theories.
>>
>>
>> For level I parallel universes, Tegmark explains his case in the paper
>> above.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:37 PM, George Cooper
>> <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > If multiverses are "beyond observation and testing", do they qualify to
>> > be
>> > called scientific theories. I have no problem if they are called
>> > hypothesis, but if they do make predictions that are untestable, then
>> > the
>> > door opens for pseudoscience to also make such claims.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course, direct observations are not a requirement as long as the
>> > inference from indirect observational evidence is strong. Black holes,
>> > for
>> > instance, are not directly observable. Do any of these "theories" offer
>> > indirect observational evidence? If so, then perhaps my view is too
>> > strong
>> > against them.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Coope
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----
>> > From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
>> > To: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
>> > Cc: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>; asa@calvin.edu
>> > Sent: Sunday, August 3, 2008 1:33:25 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All
>> >
>> > The fact is that multiverses is a logical outcome and prediction of
>> > the various cosmological models involved. (Level I: (Open multiverse)
>> > A generic prediction of cosmic inflation is an infinite ergodic
>> > universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing
>> > all initial conditions.) This by itself does not guarantee the
>> > existence of multiverses, however it provides at least a theoretical
>> > foundation. The problem is that presently multiverses remain beyond
>> > 'observation' and 'testing'.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:41 AM, George Cooper
>> >> <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Rich
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> As you have pointed out in their conclusion, they do not address the
>> >>> possibility that these stars, which they take to be in an equilibrium
>> >>> state,
>> >>> might not ever form. Even if stars could form they would have to
>> >>> survive
>> >>> their instability phase, too. Supernova would be also required in
>> >>> order
>> >>> to
>> >>> form the necessary metals for terrestrial planets capable of hosting
>> >>> life,
>> >>> whatever metals that might be. It would have been interesting if
>> >>> they
>> >>> could have shown that nucleosynthesis of carbon was possible within
>> >>> the
>> >>> range they found to suitable for fusion. [Carbon was not deemed
>> >>> possible
>> >>> until Hoyle determined otherwise, which helped BBT, ironically.]
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Keep in mind that there is no hint of a test procedure to determine
>> >>> the
>> >>> existence of another universe. Multi universes and parallel universes
>> >>> are
>> >>> not "science" but metaphysics. To take quantum events and conclude
>> >>> other
>> >>> universes can exist is a stretch of unimaginable proportions and
>> >>> beyond
>> >>> anything that mankind has ever done, right? [Admittedly, other
>> >>> universes
>> >>> might exist as I have no science to suggest they don't, but the
>> >>> proponents
>> >>> and authors of other universes should at least not use the "theory"
>> >>> tag,
>> >>> especially when they know what a theory is not.]
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Coope
>> >>
>> >> I didn't want to overstate the case and like you I would say if the
>> >> anthropic principle is considered not "science" then multi-verse
>> >> cosmologies
>> >> also are not "science" for the same reason. Nevertheless, this was a
>> >> first
>> >> stab at trying to deal with the fine tuning objection to the
>> >> multi-verse
>> >> hypothesis. You piqued my curiosity. Where did you hear it called a
>> >> theory
>> >> instead of a hypothesis?
>> >>
>> >> Rich Blinne
>> >> Member ASA
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 4 11:27:08 2008